For me, the reality in which we [the human race] live has usually fallen
together in little pieces - like blocks in a Tetris game. In otherwords,
I have this high-level idea of reality and whatever findings I come
across (whether other people's or mine) that I agree with, fit into this
imaginary area that makes up my picture of reality.
Examples to illustrate. Scientists develop theory of red/blue shift and
demonstrate its properties and effects. I accept this, it seems logical
and supported. Scientists notice stars having particularly related blue
shifts, Hubble claims the Big Band theory.
Aha! A new piece of the puzzle falls in!
Now my 'partial' view of reality becomes one of concurrence with the Big
Bang theory.
So what's my point? I was just trying to explain how the picture of
reality as we know it forms in my head. Now I move on to explain my
high-level philosophical view of reality.
----
First, let me say I don't believe philosophy is physically
useless. Philosophy permeates all. The study of philosophy leads to the
study of logic which is a foundation of many important subjects including
general algorithms, science itself, computer design, rhetoric, ethics, and
much math.
THE QUESTION
I take the stance that the most important question we can ask is "Is time
infinite, or is there a definite beginning and end to all that is?"
In fact, if I were ever to meet the 'creator', of course assuming there is
a 'creator', this would be _the_ one question I would ask.
Many people tend to wonder why are we here, this is a good question. But
I feel if only this question were answered, it might leave one still a
little puzzled. Suppose the answer was "To have fun." Why? You might
wonder. Does it matter? The creator told us our purpose is to have fun
and the creator is all knowing. Well, actually I agree that it doesn't
matter in this case. If there really is an all-knowing creator, by
definition the creators ideas are perfect to us.
But.
That's IF. A big if.
It is here that I believe the weakness of this why are we here question
appears. I find it hard to believe that living beings could ever get the
chance to communicate with the 'creator' to get the answer. Dead people
don't do us any good, they don't exist in reality (at least as far as we
know).
Furthermore, I've gotten the impression many people claim to have spoken
to or read the ideas of the 'creator'. But, many of these same people
have terrible statistical track records, they either been revealed to be
abusing power and or exploiting others and or have mental problems. In
otherwords, who can you trust? How do you really know the 'creator' has
spoken [remember, in our reality how would this believably happen]?
Lastly, and what I tend to see as reality, is the important idea
that the 'creator' isn't even human, isn't even a god we can talk per
se. But the 'creator' in actuality is a concept! In fact much like the
concept of infinity in math. You can't count to infinity because 'count
to' implies an end of which there is none in infinity. You don't even
have a start point for infinity, as infinity exists infinitely in both
directions of a number line. As far as I know you can't even see infinity,
because seeing implies a vision of discrete range. Concepts can be pretty
far out!!! Perhaps the most far out, perhaps beyond our limited
existence, perhaps a god, perhaps the god.
A good question to consider is that if B begins from A such that A has no
beginning is A infinite? I believe it is, and it nicely conceptualizes
the Christian God (at least some versions) who supposedly has no creator.
So where does this all lead?
MY REALITY (the meat)
Our universe is not special. The magical numbers which seem to give rise
to life appear arbitrary to me. A number is not special, except that it
allows a quantitative observation - which is important. It is perfectly
reasonable to imagine another universe where the terms in equations are a
little different. Or, if I can even accept our universe does contain
special numbers which give rise life, but only if these numbers apply to
all the other universe's.
Other universe's? Yes, I believe that we live one universe of an
infinite number or infinite procession from Big Bang to expansion, to
collapse, to Big Bang. Not necessarily in that manner, but definitely in
that conceptual cycle.
In fact, it should be noted that one day while looking through a (quite
large) book of astronomy photographs it dawned on me that the processes
within the universe resembled the hydrological cycle. Stars create and
expel matter, matter coalesces, planets form and eventually may get
broken down again by other matter or a dying star, more stars form from
all the replaced matter and expelling matter again, and so on in a cycle.
And, it becomes my initial belief that blacks holes complete this
conceptual cycle from Big Bang to collapse. Because black holes have
infinite mass and thus infinite gravity they will continue to pull our
universe in on itself, with no end. Well, at least until they've sucked
so much that the universe begins to collapse again unto a single point at
which a Big Bang will result causing the a new cycle of reality.
It seems the majority of people say Nader is a bad vote because he will not win, in otherwords it is a throwaway vote.
Well, I completely disagree. You should vote your conscience. Do you think the American colonialists thought to themselves, "hmm, we probably won't win a war against England - lets just do what is safe and side with their overwhelming numbers."
And who won that war? And what did they fight for? Monarchies? I don't think so. (at least not ones as strict as Englands)
And lets suppose you vote Nader and he loses and George W'buh gains power. Bush acts predictably and puts on a black cloak dons a raspy old voice and begins to refer to all the unrich as 'insulent dogs'. Big f'in deal - it's riot'n time. You wanna be Jedi Rebel? What about a real rebel! Sounds fun don't it?
And lets suppose you vote Nader and Gore wins. Gore will act predicatably (as you can see from his track record see: Al Gore A User's Manual) and his head spins around 90 degrees {much like the mayor from Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas} to reveal the effigy of whoelse but George W'buh. Well, the 'safe' vote isn't so safe anymore.
It's hard for me to believe that people actually want to make a safe vote. And I _think_ that's what V. Cerf and Brin are advocating. They fear Bush winning because not enough voted for Gore. I can't see it any other way.
Vote what you believe, and fight for(which includes an ability to justify) your beliefs.
::: that's my main comment, you can read more below if you have time:::
Some others claim it's becuase he's a crackpot with crackpot ideas.
I'm going to vote for Nader because I like his position on issues - he is obviously more philanthropic than individualistic (as Bush and to slightly lesser extent Gore are).
Which leads me to respond first to the latter, I believe that one can roughly generalize two types of voters [as Brin did with those who want all to be rich, and those who want to be rich-"er"].
Thus, individualists will want to be rich"er" and favor themselves any way they can. The great lyricist Reznor wrote:
'god money's not looking for the cure
god money's not concerned about the sick among the pure
god money let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised'
Perhaps this is out of context, as far as I know I don't think it is. And if you're an individualist, then you'll think Nader is a crazy man. You'll think and say "geeze, what a loon, I'm not just gonna give my hard-earned money away. Hell, if I can steal money and get away with it, then I deserve to be richer too [see corporate crime - the _largest_ of all criminal acts]!"
Note: I'm not making an absolute judgement call here, who knows if there is 'right' way to act in ones life anyways. You'd need to deeply study ethics to be able make an educated guess at what is right or wrong and even then there may not be an answer. In summary, self-serving people think Nader is crackpot because they are different, not because Nader is an all-around crackpot. Perot is more a crackpot than Nader. Crackpots are crazy, for real, at least by definition, and I don't think Nader is crazy. Crockpots, on the other hand are good for chili and nacho cheese dips.
Slashdot Mirror
This true, I can attest the logic(female) != logic(male);
But it is my fear, that even geek girl logic is still askewed from geek guy logic!!!!!
I still havn't been able test this though.
My last girlfriend was pysch major. Joy
For me, the reality in which we [the human race] live has usually fallen
together in little pieces - like blocks in a Tetris game. In otherwords,
I have this high-level idea of reality and whatever findings I come
across (whether other people's or mine) that I agree with, fit into this
imaginary area that makes up my picture of reality.
Examples to illustrate. Scientists develop theory of red/blue shift and
demonstrate its properties and effects. I accept this, it seems logical
and supported. Scientists notice stars having particularly related blue
shifts, Hubble claims the Big Band theory.
Aha! A new piece of the puzzle falls in!
Now my 'partial' view of reality becomes one of concurrence with the Big
Bang theory.
So what's my point? I was just trying to explain how the picture of
reality as we know it forms in my head. Now I move on to explain my
high-level philosophical view of reality.
----
First, let me say I don't believe philosophy is physically
useless. Philosophy permeates all. The study of philosophy leads to the
study of logic which is a foundation of many important subjects including
general algorithms, science itself, computer design, rhetoric, ethics, and
much math.
THE QUESTION
I take the stance that the most important question we can ask is "Is time
infinite, or is there a definite beginning and end to all that is?"
In fact, if I were ever to meet the 'creator', of course assuming there is
a 'creator', this would be _the_ one question I would ask.
Many people tend to wonder why are we here, this is a good question. But
I feel if only this question were answered, it might leave one still a
little puzzled. Suppose the answer was "To have fun." Why? You might
wonder. Does it matter? The creator told us our purpose is to have fun
and the creator is all knowing. Well, actually I agree that it doesn't
matter in this case. If there really is an all-knowing creator, by
definition the creators ideas are perfect to us.
But.
That's IF. A big if.
It is here that I believe the weakness of this why are we here question
appears. I find it hard to believe that living beings could ever get the
chance to communicate with the 'creator' to get the answer. Dead people
don't do us any good, they don't exist in reality (at least as far as we
know).
Furthermore, I've gotten the impression many people claim to have spoken
to or read the ideas of the 'creator'. But, many of these same people
have terrible statistical track records, they either been revealed to be
abusing power and or exploiting others and or have mental problems. In
otherwords, who can you trust? How do you really know the 'creator' has
spoken [remember, in our reality how would this believably happen]?
Lastly, and what I tend to see as reality, is the important idea
that the 'creator' isn't even human, isn't even a god we can talk per
se. But the 'creator' in actuality is a concept! In fact much like the
concept of infinity in math. You can't count to infinity because 'count
to' implies an end of which there is none in infinity. You don't even
have a start point for infinity, as infinity exists infinitely in both
directions of a number line. As far as I know you can't even see infinity,
because seeing implies a vision of discrete range. Concepts can be pretty
far out!!! Perhaps the most far out, perhaps beyond our limited
existence, perhaps a god, perhaps the god.
A good question to consider is that if B begins from A such that A has no
beginning is A infinite? I believe it is, and it nicely conceptualizes
the Christian God (at least some versions) who supposedly has no creator.
So where does this all lead?
MY REALITY (the meat)
Our universe is not special. The magical numbers which seem to give rise
to life appear arbitrary to me. A number is not special, except that it
allows a quantitative observation - which is important. It is perfectly
reasonable to imagine another universe where the terms in equations are a
little different. Or, if I can even accept our universe does contain
special numbers which give rise life, but only if these numbers apply to
all the other universe's.
Other universe's? Yes, I believe that we live one universe of an
infinite number or infinite procession from Big Bang to expansion, to
collapse, to Big Bang. Not necessarily in that manner, but definitely in
that conceptual cycle.
In fact, it should be noted that one day while looking through a (quite
large) book of astronomy photographs it dawned on me that the processes
within the universe resembled the hydrological cycle. Stars create and
expel matter, matter coalesces, planets form and eventually may get
broken down again by other matter or a dying star, more stars form from
all the replaced matter and expelling matter again, and so on in a cycle.
And, it becomes my initial belief that blacks holes complete this
conceptual cycle from Big Bang to collapse. Because black holes have
infinite mass and thus infinite gravity they will continue to pull our
universe in on itself, with no end. Well, at least until they've sucked
so much that the universe begins to collapse again unto a single point at
which a Big Bang will result causing the a new cycle of reality.
It seems the majority of people say Nader is a bad vote because he will not win, in otherwords it is a throwaway vote.
:::
Well, I completely disagree. You should vote your conscience. Do you think the American colonialists thought to themselves, "hmm, we probably won't win a war against England - lets just do what is safe and side with their overwhelming numbers."
And who won that war? And what did they fight for? Monarchies? I don't think so. (at least not ones as strict as Englands)
And lets suppose you vote Nader and he loses and George W'buh gains power. Bush acts predictably and puts on a black cloak dons a raspy old voice and begins to refer to all the unrich as 'insulent dogs'. Big f'in deal - it's riot'n time. You wanna be Jedi Rebel? What about a real rebel! Sounds fun don't it?
And lets suppose you vote Nader and Gore wins. Gore will act predicatably (as you can see from his track record see: Al Gore A User's Manual) and his head spins around 90 degrees {much like the mayor from Burton's Nightmare Before Christmas} to reveal the effigy of whoelse but George W'buh. Well, the 'safe' vote isn't so safe anymore.
It's hard for me to believe that people actually want to make a safe vote. And I _think_ that's what V. Cerf and Brin are advocating. They fear Bush winning because not enough voted for Gore. I can't see it any other way.
Vote what you believe, and fight for(which includes an ability to justify) your beliefs.
::: that's my main comment, you can read more below if you have time
Some others claim it's becuase he's a crackpot with crackpot ideas.
I'm going to vote for Nader because I like his position on issues - he is obviously more philanthropic than individualistic (as Bush and to slightly lesser extent Gore are).
Which leads me to respond first to the latter, I believe that one can roughly generalize two types of voters [as Brin did with those who want all to be rich, and those who want to be rich-"er"].
Thus, individualists will want to be rich"er" and favor themselves any way they can. The great lyricist Reznor wrote:
'god money's not looking for the cure
god money's not concerned about the sick among the pure
god money let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised'
Perhaps this is out of context, as far as I know I don't think it is. And if you're an individualist, then you'll think Nader is a crazy man. You'll think and say "geeze, what a loon, I'm not just gonna give my hard-earned money away. Hell, if I can steal money and get away with it, then I deserve to be richer too [see corporate crime - the _largest_ of all criminal acts]!"
Note: I'm not making an absolute judgement call here, who knows if there is 'right' way to act in ones life anyways. You'd need to deeply study ethics to be able make an educated guess at what is right or wrong and even then there may not be an answer. In summary, self-serving people think Nader is crackpot because they are different, not because Nader is an all-around crackpot. Perot is more a crackpot than Nader. Crackpots are crazy, for real, at least by definition, and I don't think Nader is crazy. Crockpots, on the other hand are good for chili and nacho cheese dips.